Chapter 9:  Civil Rights, Affirmative Action, Bilingualism, and Immigration

I.  Civil Rights—Introduction

The metaphor of the melting pot is unfortunate and misleading. A more accurate analogy would be a salad bowl, for, though the salad is an entity, the lettuce can still be distinguished from the chicory, the tomatoes from the cabbage.
— Carl N. Degler

America has believed that in differentiation, not in uniformity, lies the path of progress. It acted on this belief; it has advanced human happiness, and it has prospered.
— Louis D. Brandeis

You cannot become thorough Americans if you think of yourselves in groups.  America does not consist of groups.  A man who thinks of himself as being to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American.       Woodrow Wilson

America in the nineties is on the road to retribalism--each ethnic community in turn organizes itself around its linguistic and cultural differences. Instead of a melting pot, there is fear America is becoming a salad bar. America, the country of immigrants has always been a multicultural and multiethnic society.  Its major achievement has been to forge a society in which vast religious, ethnic, and racial differences were subordinated to the higher unity of national identity, that of an American, belief in a set of principles, in assimilation and integration into America as an American, commitment of Americans to democracy, self government, and civic participation. The exercise of political rights and civic responsibilities bestowed on them by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. When multiculturalism with its politics of ethnic and racial redress threatens to split the country apart into a tangle of squabbling nationalities.  The ideas of essential dignity and equality of all human beings, of inalienable rights to freedom, justice, and opportunity.
	 The idea of the melting pot is being denounced, the concept of Americans as one people, and effort pursued to protect, promote, and perpetuate separate ethnic and racial communities.   History has time and again showed us that when people of different languages, ethnic origins, and different religions settle in the same geographic region, unless common purpose binds them together, tribal hostilities will drive them apart.  Government mandated racial preferences have exacerbated inter-group animosity. The end result could well be balkanization of America with Yugoslavia a reminder of what that could imply.  We must return to those American concepts, English as official tongue, the values that made America great.   The revision of history and the deemphasis being placed on Western civilization is at the root of ethnic tribalism.  The battle for Western civilization is being fought and lost in the classroom, in the universities where Afro-centric curriculum, Hispanic Studies, are being taught. Cultural pluralism is necessity in an ethnically diversified society.   When does obsession with differences  begin to threaten the idea of the all encompassing American dogma?  At that point, the entire American ideology is at risk.

II.  Civil Rights--The Problem
	The tangential that many of today’s Civil Rights suits have proceeded, makes one wonder the logic involved.  The ADA  (Americans for Disabilities Act) forced Becker (a firm which provides review services for those wishing to pass the CPA exam) to provide special extra services to handicapped (deaf) recipients (to provide an interpreter and special learning materials and special tests).  Yet it would not allow Becker to charge extra.  In essence, Becker is forced to lose money for each handicapped student provided, a situation Becker can not continue to do for long as a private corporation. Obesity, drug addiction, alcoholism are all being defended as disabilities under the ADA.   Drug addiction has been declared a disability, as if the drug addicts had nothing to do with their addiction.  A dentist was sued under the ADA because he refused to treat an AIDS patient.  AIDS is a lifestyle disease; over ninety percent get aids due to drug usage or homosexual behavior.  If AIDS is a disability why not alcoholism? Drug usage? Homicide? Sexual psychopaths? Why not protect their rights as they too are ‘disable.’ We are all disabled in one fashion or another, when will it all end. 
	The number and quality of suits filed under the ADA since its passage have been considerable and increasingly absurd.  One woman suited for $1.2 million when her company reprimanded her for body odor.  A Connecticut superintendent of schools, repeatedly caught driving drunk (the last time, dressed in women’s clothes), claims protection under the ADA as an alcoholic and collects $240,000 plus a pension for life from a school board that preferred to avoid litigation.  A couple hit by a train in the course of amorous activity on a little used subway track filed a suit against the railway.  
	The doctrine of categorical representation holds that the interests of particular groups can be properly represented only by members of those groups (blacks, Hispanics but not to whites),   therefore it is a civil right.   The latest Civil Rights Act declares that even neutral employment policies are unlawful if they lead to statistical imbalances between the racial, religious or sexual composition of the workforce. Statistical imbalance has become an exploding fuse. Northwest Airlines agreed to spend up to $4 million to accelerate hiring and promotion of minority workers, to establish special scholarships for black mechanics and pilot trainees, and to aware back pay and promotions to existing minority employees--not because of discrimination but because there was  a statistical imbalance in the airline’s work force. Any hiring standard that shows a ‘disparate impact’ on racial groups is suspect.   Companies are presumed guilty until proven innocent.  They must demonstrate their standards are related to job performance and required by business necessity.  Because of the difficulty and intrusion and legal liability, many companies have taken the easy way out by creating aggressive preferential hiring systems for minorities. Hence, quotas become almost mandated. Whatever happened to choosing the best person available for the job?
	All-women schools and universities are the rage today as a means of increasing the self-esteem of women students.  Black universities want to keep their separate identities.  Yet VMI and the Citadel fought and lost to keep their male-only identity, fighting against the justice department as well as the entire civil rights establishment.  Where is the logic?  If there can be ‘black’ fraternities and sororities, why not ‘white’ groups.  If all-women schools why not all-men schools?  What is good for the goose is good for the gander. The law should be color blind  and sex-neutral.  Either allow institutions to discriminate if sufficient reason exists, or forbid them altogether.  But do not continue to provide hypocritical situations (which also could extend to ‘Women’s Studies’,  ‘Hispanic Studies’ programs in higher education; if one is going to offer those one must also offer Men’s Studies and White’s Studies). 
	Civil rights suits by inmates protesting prison conditions have multiplied tenfold in just a few years.  One potential suit is over the use of razor wire on a prison fence, saying prisoners could hurt themselves if they tried to climb through.  Prisons are required to provide inmates with access to law books and postage to mail their complaints. Where does this absurdity stop? The newest buzzword in the Affirmative Action bandwagon is HUB--Historically Underfunded Businesses.  This is a new word to reflect an old idea--minority setasides.  Many public institutions are being required to purchase as much as 30 percent of their procurement budget from HUBs.  Very few are able to do so--quality HUBs do not exist in such numbers. Yet, institutions are supposed to accept unqualified vendors, uncertain quality of goods and services, higher costs for performing these services, and in a longer timeframe than otherwise, in the name of helping the underprivileged. This is just another example of discrimination against one group and for another--the very opposite notion of what the original Civil Rights legislation was supposed to have produced. White women are somehow designated minorities.  Asians are also designated as a minority group, despite being economically better off than any other ethnic group (including whites).  So many minorities are designated as such that the only true minority that has not been designated as such and should be protected is the white male.
	 Affirmative action should be viewed as whether or not America is a nation organized around the principle of individual achievement or group entitlement. Should you judge people according to their merits or their color, age, gender, or political beliefs. Should Affirmative Action be infinite and forever.  Should Affirmative Action be able to identify one group of people who should be given certain privileges because their ancestors were misused and handled obviously very badly?  Should a young man today who is happens not to be a member of the minority be discriminated against to permit a minority person to take the job because Affirmative Action has to discriminate and has to take one person and put them  ahead of another?  What about this other person; he, too, only has one life?    When you pick a group of people of one racial group and grant everyone in that group extra privileges because of their race aren’t you discriminating against all other groups?  What about the scenario where a wealthy black gentleman’s wife who has no children is given  a job because their aren’t enough black   versus   a poor white male who is married and has 6 children and is depended very much on a job and needs one very badly.  Which of those two people should get the job?  Even if all other items are considered equal, the black women would more than likely get the job, if not because of quotas then because of fear she will call racism if denied the job. Which of the two needs the job worst?  Probably    the man (who just unfortunately was born white) who is the sole breadwinner of his family who really needs the job to support all his dependents. Yet he is the least likely to get the job. That is the hypocrisy of affirmative action.  Instead of becoming economically justified and providing advantages to those economically disadvantaged, race rules supreme.
	Very little actual empirical evidence exists that affirmative action has benefited blacks or women.  It may well be counterproductive. Harvard could bring in a bright (but not brilliant) black, giving the person a full scholarship, because it needed so many blacks on campus, to be counted in their enrollment.  He may be bright and do well at some small state school but is out of his league at Harvard and fails.  Or worse yet, should be failed but is passed for affirmative action reasons.  His peers believe they are being discriminated against because he is given the easy route.  And as a result, an employer looking to hire him has to wonder if his grades were the result of his efforts or his skin color.   Similarly, the effect upon his attitudes is negative; he knows he succeeded because of his race, it can not help but create doubts of his own competence on his own. 
	The equal opportunity laws provided penalties for discrimination.  The employer could avoid all penalties by not discriminating and incur penalties by doing so, straightforward incentive system.  Affirmative action creates two sets of incentives with respect to hiring and firing minorities.  The first incentive encourages employers to hire from these groups to get the government off their back.  Later, though,  if the promotion and pay pattern of people from these groups do not meet the expectation of the government, large costs must be borne, legitimately or otherwise.   All in all, affirmative action snowballs.  You are not selecting people because they are right or the best but because of their race, sex, or ethnic characteristics.  If you find out they are not capable and decide not to promote them, you may be sued because of discriminatory treatment.  Your best bet is to promote them somewhere where they won’t do much or cause much damage but will still count towards your quotas. 
	Another civil rights trend is to be wary of any discipline or punishment inflicted upon blacks by whites.  The problem with the Rodney King beating by LA officers were that they were white and he black; if any other combination existed, it would not have been as newsworthy.  Cincinnati school district’s tough discipline code is in trouble because it may violate Afro-Americans, that is, the disparate impact of the code on black students must be remedied.  The school system is being asked to keep records of the race and sex of the teachers referring students for disciplinary action and the race and sex of the students involved.  Is it okay for a black teacher to refer a black child for disciplinary action but not for a white teacher for exactly the same offense?   Does this mean that  kids of different races who commit the same infraction will be punished differently?  Might a quota system be set up that establishes how many of one group can be disciplined for a given offense in a given year?   Disparity is not indicative of discrimination.   If we don’t base parking tickets on the race of the driver, why should we use it to decide questions of school discipline.   Making certain arrests are racially balanced is not the best way to deter crime.
	HUD has gotten into the act by condemning organized opposition to homeless shelters, drug treatment centers and residences  for the mentally ill as constituting ‘housing discrimination’ against the disabled.  HUD believes that when free speech conflicts with ‘fair housing’  that  speech must be muzzled. Such activities include distributing pamphlets, holding open community meetings and testifying at public hearings.  Those who did were investigated by the office.  In addition, should citizens carry their activities beyond public agencies, they risk liability under the Fair Housing Act.  Finally, HUD retains indirect censorship by holding a city liable for statements made by its residents.  Thus,  discrimination and affirmative action takes precedence over the bill of rights.
	The 1969 Supreme Court redefined the Voting Rights Act to require ‘direct proportionality based on race.’  It has since expanded that notion via gerrymandering so that racial minorities not only be able to compete freely in politics but that they be elected in rough proportion to their population (37 black House democrats are all from ‘safe‘ seats and form the politically powerful Black Caucus.). Thus, as Justice Clarence Thomas puts it, “We have involved the federal courts and indeed the Nation in the enterprise of systematically dividing the country into electoral districts along racial lines--an enterprise of segregating the races into political homelands that amounts  to nothing short of a system of political apartheid. The current system can only serve to deepen racial divisions by destroying any need for voters or candidates to build bridges between racial groups or to form voting coalitions.”    Segregating voters is inconsistent with Martin Luther King’s belief that a human being’s ethnicity is the least meaningful way to understand that person. As Justice William Douglas put it: “When racial or religious lines are drawn by the State, the multiracial, multireligious communities that our Constitution seeks to weld together as one become separatists . . . communities that seek not the best representative but the best racial or religious partisan.  That system is at war with the democratic ideal.” Fortunately, the Supreme court has reversed itself on this ruling.
	The ideals of the 1960s civil-rights movement were undeniable:  equal opportunity for everyone, a color-blind standard and the fair treatment of people based on respect for their status as individuals, not as members of groups.  Today we have the opposite:  quotas and reverse discrimination, a whole body of laws and regulations enforcing the entitlements of group rights. Why and how long must we carry forward a program to overcome discrimination from another time, especially when doing so violates the rights of individuals who are not themselves guilty of discrimination.  This is another example of group rights reasoning:  underrepresentation of any group is automatically assumed to be the result of racism requiring legal remedy. 
	In its original meaning, the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 was intended to protect every American citizen from discrimination on the basis of race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.  A provision of the act declares explicitly that no employer shall be required to grant preferential treatment to any individual or group because of race, sex, ethnicity, religion, or national origin in order to redress any difference between the composition of the employer’s work force and that of the qualified labor pool. We have progressed far beyond the original intent of that Act and need return to the original color blind intent.  A good place to start is The  California Civil Rights initiative which states: ‘Neither the State nor any of its political subdivisions or agents shall use race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin as a criterion for either discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group in the operation of the state’s system of public employment, public education or public contracting.’  A federal law should follow reemphasizing the original intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. And followup should be required.  The Clinton Administration does not believe in colorblindness and has either outright refused or has dragged its feet in responding.
	Guaranteeing equal opportunity does not produce equality of results and never has and never will.  Some people are more disciplined than others, others work harder, and others are more intelligent. We want be a pluralistic and inclusive society but  instead, despite all of the affirmative action and quotas, America seems to be moving towards a racial hierarchy: with whites and Asians at the top, Hispanics in the middle and Afro Americans at the bottom.  Merit produces inequality, not just inequality between individuals but inequality among groups. This is a law of nature and all of man’s best intentions cannot repeal natural law.  Race-norming (ethnic conversion tables to adjust minority scores)  basically established meritocratic selection within racial tracks (since outlawed in the Civil Rights Act of 1991).
	The latest absurdity has been the discussion of a full Congressional and Presidential apology to the descendants of slaves for slavery in this country.  Along with that discussion is the call for reparations to the same descendants.   It is one thing to apologize for the sins of your own group, quite another to speak in the name of people who feel no such involvement in your sins.  Why should I apologize?  My ancestors were over in Europe at the time (with very few civil rights themselves) or those ancestors in America were in the North and had left slave territories because they could not accept the principle of slavery.  If we must apologize, apologize to specific groups who are still living.  Slavery is not an American issue, slavery has been endemic to the human race since time immortal.  Africans sold other Africans into slavery. There is no sense or rationale in apologizing, let alone providing repatriations.


III. Civil Rights--Recommendations
	Our Recommendations  are as follows: 
	•Equal opportunity.  No discrimination, reverse or otherwise. no quotas or special preferential treatment.  No busing except to nearest school. You can not discriminate for and yet not against.
	•Remove all quotas, affirmative action programs.  In an equal opportunity state, each person has equal chance to secure job, college, eta as all do and placement will be solely dependent upon ability.  
	•Either allow discriminatory affiliations or deny them altogether, there can not be a middle ground.
	•Confirm the elimination of race norming
	• Eliminate disparity as an indication of discrimination.
	•Eliminate gerrymandering, by race, religion, or any other factor.  Districts should be drawn for geographic convenience, period, no other reasons acceptable.



IV.Bilingualism

The adoption of the English language has been the principal means of melting us down into one people, and  . . which eliminated  a wall of partition between the inhabitants of the same land–––DeWitt Clinton

We have room in this country for but one flag. We have room for but one language--English. 
Teddy Roosevelt.

Bilingual education can have only one valid goal: the achievement of genuine competency in reading, writing, hearing and speaking the English language.  It is in actuality, the education of non-English speaking children in the language of their new country. Bilingualism has not worked.  It actually retards rather than expedites the movement of Hispanic children into the English speaking world.  It promotes segregation more than it does integration.  It nourishes self-ghettoization and racism. It alienates the recipients from society in general.  Using another language rather than  English dooms people to second class citizenship in American society and a life in a ghetto rather than being assimilated into this country.   Common language is necessary bond of national cohesion in so heterogeneous as nation as America is. French is the official language of France, Spanish that of Mexico, and Mandarin that of China, why shouldn’t American English be the official language of America?
	Ethnic groups have the right to preserve their language and heritage, to be encouraged to maintain their languages and customs, to have the right to speak their native tongue.   However, the need for a common language is that upon which national unity depends.  The citizens of the Roman Empire spoke many different tongues but Latin was the official language, the language of law, commerce and government.  Roman society never considered it necessary or desirable to provide a German or Celt with their own political, legal, or educational institutions.  The Roman Empire split into two when Greek became the official language of the Eastern provinces.  Is that end result we want for America? What Teddy Roosevelt called ‘hyphenated Americans,’ perpetuate their ethnic particularism at the expense of their integration into American society. citizenship in American society.   Common language is the necessary bond of national cohesion in so heterogeneous as nation as America is. That is why we propose that American English be officially declared the national language of the United States.  We also recommend that no bilingual ballots be issued.  We believe that a citizen in order to be fully coherent in his or her political choices, must be literate.  Therefore, we recommend that citizens must be able to pass a (written and oral) literacy test at a 12th grade level, both written and speaking American English in order to receive the honor to vote. 
	Considerable divisiveness  exists between the races,  between the young and old, between the nationalities in this country.  We want these people to be proud to be Americans.  All of us Americans not Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, German Americans, etc... But Americans. Not hyphenated Americans.  This is not to say that one should ignore or forget one’s national identity or ethnic background. But to put it aside and to first be an American.  To do that the government has to create this unity rather than a deviousness of identifying certain people and getting certain thing that other people are not able to get.  Because you just can’t do that fairly.  Even in this particular group of minorities there are many very affluent people and many of intelligent and well educated people and who do not need this kind of a  boost and in some ways as some of there leaders state this is in fact counter productive.  However I’m sure that there are advantages to it but,  it creates a divisiveness we have to explore that to turn it around and get away from this identification  of people rather to treat us all as Americans. 
	English is the glue holding multicultural America together.  America is fast becoming a society divided by language.  That is why we believe a bill to make English the official language of the United States is badly needed.    High school graduation should not be without fluency in reading and writing English.    Bilingual education has poor effectiveness and record.  The dropout rate for bilingual students worse than for others.  Even a majority of  minorities think schools should not teach minority children a non-English language if it meant less time for teaching them English.   Ballots, drivers test are currently in other a multiple of languages (note that road signs are not written in these languages).   Over 3/4  of all Americans believe English should be the official language of government and should be learned by all citizens.  All business should be conducted in English, and those statues that mandate bilingual education, multilingual ballots, tests should be repealed. Some may say this  English-only legislation is racist and anti-Hispanic?  No, this is America, an English speaking country and if he or she wishes to stay here, he or she should learn the speak the language of the land. Should a monolingual English speaker be discriminated against in favor of bilingual speakers?   No.  Another law would forbid the denial of a job to an English-only speaker because of his/her inability to speak another language.
	Our recommendation is simple: We would eliminate bilingual programs.  Conduct all classes in English.  Offer after-school and intensive summer vacation programs for those who have English as a second language.  The sooner a student  learns English, the sooner he or she can become assimilated into the mainstream American society and the better his/her opportunities are for the future.




V.  Immigration and Policy


In 1980, the United States accepted as many refugees and immigrants as did the rest of the world combined--nearly 1 million legal immigrants and again as many illegal.  Since 1980, immigration has accounted for half the national growth rate.   California alone receives upwards of 300,000 per year; it is estimated that 1 million illegals live in Los Angeles.  Over 50% of all illegals live in California; in 1993, 322,000 illegal immigrants received free public health care in California, an increase of over 1800 % since 1989.  Two-thirds of the births in Los Angeles County public hospitals are to illegal agents; once born the children are automatically US citizens, entitled to the full range of social benefit programs.  Fourteen percent of California’s prison population are illegal immigrants; California spends $475 million a year to incarcerate convicted illegal immigrants. The cost of educating illegal immigrants in California alone is $1.5 billion annually. These extrorbitant expenses on illegals means that the amount and quality of public services for legal citizens has been severely impacted. As many as 15 million new immigrants can be expected to arrive each decade for the next 30 years. Between 1965 and 1990, 14 million newcomers arrived legally, 85 percent of which were non-Europeans, mainly Hispanics and Asians.  Each year between 2 and 3 million immigrants arrive from Mexico.  By the year 2000, only half the people entering the work force will be of European stock.
  	The costs of the current immigration boom is becoming unbearable.  New York City hospitals spend $500 million a year on care for illegal aliens.  In Dade County Florida, seventeen thousand undocumented children are in public schools spending over $70 million a year. For the fiscal year 94-95, California estimates public costs for illegal immigrants at $2.5 billion. In California,  foreign born households receive 32 % of all cash assistance. Illegal immigrants are the fast growing segment of the nation’s criminal population, making up 25 percent of federal prison population.  450,000 behind bars.  At the very least, Washington, the federal government, should reimburse the states and municipalities for these expenses.
	Sixty percent of respondents in recent polls have said America should be letting fewer people in. The Statue of Liberty stands for freedom, not for unlimited immigration. Recent immigrants have low education and skill levels (skills are declining compared with those of the native-born population; lower skills mean more poverty and greater costs to the taxpayer--by 1990, immigrant participation rate was higher than average for welfare, 9% of households and 13% of welfare moneys.) congregating in the inner cities, imposing additional demands upon social (especially health and welfare) and educational services.  In addition, assimilation has become harder with the rise of multiculturalism and the new emphasis on group rights.  
    	The Statue of Liberty approach was valid at  a certain point in time and what worked then   may not be a valid approach today.  One hundred years ago, we had a frontier we needed to fill in and now that is filled. There is no way in the world that the United States can make the whole world better by having everybody live in the United States; America can not absorb the whole world.    We can only do so much.  The more efficient and the better country we can make it the more we can influence other countries;   Therefore,  we should not be committed  to programs that are counter productive to the United States’ best interests.   We should be selfish and admit those who will not benefit those outside but rather those inside.  If an immigrant cannot fulfill a purpose or add to the economic strength of the United States, he or she should not be admitted.  It makes no sense to admit poor, illiterate Cubans or Haitians who end up on welfare but be restrictive on foreign doctors, professionals, or engineers/scientists.  It  should be the other way around. The defense of the United States is best based on its economic welfare,  on its capability to mobilize and do things that it needs to do because it has the industry and the wealth to do it with and the more we weaken ourselves the less we can influence the rest of the world.  
	The present system of citizenship  declares anyone born in the U.S. to be a U.S. citizen.  Citizenship should be a privilege not a right. Citizenship should strictly be through a parents’ citizenship. Children born to American citizens should be considered American citizen.  A Mexican woman 9 months pregnant crossing the border to give birth, thus making her child an American citizen, is not what we want.  Our policy should be like that of France and other countries, if you have a child in France and you are American citizen, then the child is not French but an American.   It is not practical otherwise. We need to restrict immigration to immediate family members of current citizens.  It is time to declare an immigration moratorium for a decade or so.  We cannot give a home to all the world’s homeless or provide an American level of living to all of those in the world who wish it. Otherwise we threaten to lower America’s standard of living to the levels of the undeveloped world.
	As part of our proposed  selective policy,  we should encourage  professionals and business people, college educated,  to bring in talent and capital rather than poor and impoverished (as does Canada, Vancouver and Toronto abound with Chinese professionals, expatriates who have sought and gained sanctuary from Hong Kong in case of Chinese crackdown on rights in 1997; their price was to invest one-half million dollars and in return gained Canadian citizenship.).  We have to do as much as it is  selfish is look at our own needs first and only do what we need to do to improve our own country.  Because in the long run  we  do not benefit the world by weakening our own country.  By making ourselves into a divisive country that isn’t able to reject the image of the what the rest of world is looking for.  And all of a sudden we will be another Yugoslavia.  So who is going to be the role model for the world?
	Recent court decisions have extended the rights and privileges of illegals, especially in regards to entitlements. 	In 1986, Congress decreed that illegal aliens must be given free emergency medical services.  This should be repealed.  California law prohibits schools from asking students if they live in the US legally.  This should not be the case.  The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that public education cannot be denied to children in the country illegally.  This should be overruled by Congressional fiat. A Massachusetts law signed by Dukakis in 1985 prohibits state agencies from aiding the government in investigating a person’s citizenship or residency status, also eliminated questions regarding citizenship or residency status from applications for state benefits.  We recommend these decisions should be overruled. Proof of legal immigrant status should be verified before welfare benefits are paid.  We have a severe budget crisis.  Shouldn’t the scarce resources of the state first go to its citizens.  Anything left over can be provided on a first-come, first serve basis to illegals and non-citizens. The identifies of illegal must be furnished to law enforcement authorities and criminal aliens deported. Fingerprint based tamper resistant social security card must be introduced.
	The problem appears to come from not all immigrants but from legal refugees (those admitted because they come from ex-communist countries such as Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, the former Soviet Union) and illegal immigrants who  predominantly have less education, lower wages and typically become more dependent on welfare.   Seventy-five (75) percent of recent arrivals  from Latin America do not have high school education.  Nearly fifty percent of such groups as Laotian and Cambodian immigrants are on welfare.  The laws against illegal immigration must be enforced, reduce the social benefits offered to refugees and making it harder for unskilled immigrants to enter the country.  The immigrant deficit nationally is about $42 billion, what is taken versus what is given.  
	Our recommendation is to cap legal immigration.  Give priority to those who would contribute most to society.  Those with special skills and technical training that make them easily employable, those who fill needs in the United States not being met by our own citizens (e.g., software engineers).   Dependent children and unskilled illegal immigrants place greater burdens on US social services and compete directly against young and disadvantages citizens for entry level jobs. We should require proof of legal status or citizenship to obtain a drivers license, receive government benefits, or job.

Home Page	
Preface & Introduction	
Chapter 1: Responsibility  
Chapter 2:  Leadership   
Chapter 3: Government  
Chapter 4:  Congress    
Chapter 5: Regulations and Bureaucracy   
Chapter 6: Defense  
Chapter 7: International Affairs 
Chapter 8: Crime and Justice  
Chapter 9:  Civil rights 
Chapter 10: Economic  
Chapter 11:  Education  
Chapter 12:  Health  
Chapter 13:  Planning and National Goals  
Conclusions  

1